VISHWA DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), HUBLI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal. The appeal was then admitted for hearing on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 3 days. The delay occurred due to a mistake in filing the appeal with the D.R.'s office instead of the Assistant Registrar.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to a bona fide mistake.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM
BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM Assessment Year : 2012 – 13 M/s Viswa Developers & Builders, 2/10, I Floor, vs. ITO, Ward – 3 (5), Mallikarjun Avenue, Koppikar Road, Hubli Hubli – 580020 PAN: AAFFV0652E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. R. Premi, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 14.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019 O R D E R
PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee and it is directed against the order of learned CIT (A), Hubballi dated 27.09.2018.
This appeal is filed by the assessee after a delay of 3 days. The assessee has moved an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit and in the same, it is stated that at the time of filing the appeal, the representative of the assessee filed the appeal with D. R’s. office on 03.12.2018 by mistake and on realization of the mistake, the appeal was filed with Asstt. Registrar ITAT on 06.12.2018 and because of this, there was a delay of 3 days and it should be condoned. Although learned DR of the revenue submitted that delay should not be condoned but in the facts of the present case and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay. 3. Although several grounds are raised by the assessee but the grievance is only one that penalty of Rs. 1.50 lacs u/s 271B is not justified. The assessee has also raised 5 additional grounds and out of that, one additional ground i.e. Ground No. 2 is this that the (B)/2019 Page 2 of 2 penalty order is time barred u/s 275 (1) (c) of I. T. Act. In course of hearing, arguments were made on this aspect only and it was submitted that this issue was not raised before CIT (A) and since, this is a legal issue, the additional ground should be admitted and the entire matter should be restored to CIT (A) for fresh decision along with time barring aspect. Learned DR of the revenue although opposed to admission of the additional ground but we admit the same because it is a legal issue. We restore the entire matter back to CIT (A) with a direction that he should first decide this aspect as to whether the penalty order is time barred u/s 275 (1) (c) of I. T. Act. If the assessee succeeds on this issue than nothing remains but if the assessee fails on this issue, the merit of the penalty should be decided afresh because the decision on merit should be after deciding the technical aspect. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026